US Pilots Labor Discussion

[fodase]

Your post seems to support my premise fodase. If that portion of the TA is over, then why would the union negotiating to change it have anything to do with the TA?

Because the east pilots agreed in the ta to be bound by the list, so by undoing the list they are renegotiating a closed and complied with contract.

 

[Pi brat]

What do you think the INTENTION was? Did you guys make a habit out of re-negotiating your seniority lists every contract? Which Labor union's do that BTW?

Believe what you want, you're entitled. But please, don't keep insulting our collective intelligences. You know Damn well what the intent of the T.A. is. Doug Parker does too. Nothing pisses me off more about Doug Weiser than when he gets up in front of the pilots and plays stupid. It's insulting.

So if we have another merger our section 22 has to be the Nic, unaltered? I know that the intention was to use it, but does it matter? I'm not arguing the point, I'm asking a question. Seniority lists have been changed.

You would have to have some intelligence in order for me to insult it. I've seen not proof of that.

 

[Pi brat]

Because the east pilots agreed in the ta to be bound by the list, so by undoing the list they are renegotiating a closed and complied with contract.

I don't think so. I've read the TA over and over again and nowhere do I see an oath to never change it. Is there an implied oath on the min fleet?

 

[CallawayGolf]

I know all those sections, but I see nothing that says section 22 will the Nic for ever and ever, unaltered.

Notice all of the uses of the term "until" in this document. The Transition Agreement acknowledges the rights, duties and obligations of each party UNTIL a join agreement is completed. Once that happens the provisions in the TA will sunset. So, the minimum fleet count, and the hiring/furlough provisions are all in force until the JCBA replaces the TA provisions.

The SLI process is different because it doesn't say a particular seniority list will be used UNTIL a JCBA is ratified. Rather, it says that the ALPA merger policy will be used TO develop the combined seniority list which all parties agree to use in the combined CBA. The pilots groups agreed to use the ALPA merger policy and to ensure that the combined list meets with the stipulated criteria for acceptance.

The whole point of the SLI section of the TA is to produce a list that will be used in the JCBA. Otherwise, what is the point of using the ALPA merger policy to develop a list that was never to be used during the TA period or in the JCBA which follows? Seriously, what would be the point of putting the SLI procedures in the TA if the resulting list, which the company paid for upon acceptance, was just to be re-negotiated as part of the CBA process? Sorry, but you're not making much sense on this line of reasoning.

 

[fodase]

Now that I can understand and it has always been what I wondered about with USAPA's road.

As far as why the company would go along, that would be the same reason they do anything-if it benefits them and they think they can get away with it!

Don't you think a doh contract would benefit the company? It would certainly give the company leverage at the table knowing how doh is your holy grail, wouldn't it?

 

[Pi brat]

Don't you think a doh contract would benefit the company? It would certainly give the company leverage at the table knowing how doh is your holy grail, wouldn't it?

yeah, that's what I mean.

 

[fodase]

I don't think so. I've read the TA over and over again and nowhere do I see an oath to never change it. Is there an implied oath on the min fleet?

There is no oath to never change any seniority list on the property is there? So are you saying the east standalone list can be re arranged at will as long as the majority of east pilots agree? i.e. there are more fo's than captains, could the east fos rearange the list and make all captains junior to all fo's? I mean there is nothing that says the list can't be changed, but there is a little something called dfr. You better have a legitimate reason for changing someone's seniority.

 

[fodase]

yeah, that's what I mean.

I think we have a break through! So if we agree that the compny would benefit from doh, why haven't they embraced it? After all they have a lot of very expensive lawyers.

 

[Pi brat]

Sorry, but you're not making much sense on this line of reasoning.

I thought of it the same way you did. It's why I didn't think USAPA's plan would work. I heard a guy on CNBC say one day that there was not a contract written that couldn't be gotten out of, and I looked it from that angle. Looking at it word for word, ignoring what may or may not have been the intent, I said "Hmm, maybe they can".

Judge Silver seems to have heartburn over the fact that the company had not tried to negotiate. That seems to imply that a resolution other than the Nic is possible, as they 9th said "may not be the worst fears....." or whatever they said. If it can be something else, then it doens't have to be the Nic. The real trick to me would be passing the DFR II. DOH is way off the solution Nic came up with and it would have to be a really good reason. i get that, just not what the TA has to do with it.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying your're wrong. I've said I have no legal training. I'm just asking a question that, so far, has not gotten through my thick head.

 

[Captain Underpants]

Just to make that last point finer, the fact that there is something else being generated raises the question of why the union is doing this. By stating to everyone that the reason is because the Nicolau is "unfair" is really an admission to the DFR breach. USAPA is saying: "Nicolau was unfair so we're making the integration fair, and we're doing it by taking what would have been the list and rearranging it by DOH." The problem with that is every West pilot loses and every East pilot gains under DOH. That answers the "why." DFR.

The company will NEVER deal so long as they face liability for entering into a JCBA that doesn't incorporate the Nicolau. Why would they? Why should they?

Aqua,

I would strongly disagree with two of your opinions.

First USAPA is saying an unmodified Nic joint contract is impossible because it is not ratifiable. Would you vote or expect others to vote to give away 15 years of seniority and perhaps $1 million plus of your career earnings in exchange for something of little or no value?

Second the West no longer has separate union representation but they still could vote via a majority of the minority and/or act as a group to accept or reject a USAPA proposed DOH deal. Would most West pilots prefer to be able to bid higher paying and more senior East vacancies vs. remaining in lower paying or furloughed West positions? The Nic award has zero value to West pilots because the TA states clearly that it can not be used without ratification which for now is clearly impossible.

Finally is USAPA's DOH seniority proposal a DFR if it benefits all pilots East and West and leads to a ratifiable contract that increases the total pay and benefits of the entire pilot group?

The problem is the West pilots still believe the Nic award has value but it will always only be a lottery ticket that can't be cashed. USAPA is trying to negotiate a path to higher paying positions for the West pilots and it makes no difference to East pilots whether you are successful or not in blocking that path.

underpants

 

[Pi brat]

I think we have a break through! So if we agree that the compny would benefit from doh, why haven't they embraced it? After all they have a lot of very expensive lawyers.

I doubt they cost $125 to 150 million a year! They are saving more without a joint contract. I think their numbers only POV thinks exactly that way.

I've said it before, a hundred management teams could work a hundred years and not come up with the cost savings these guys fell into! Doug goes to the crews news sessions, wrings his hands and says"Sorry guys, we'd LOVE to get you a new contract, it's the right thing to do, but hey we've got to let it run it's course............blah, blah blah"

 

[luvn737s]

First USAPA is saying an unmodified Nic joint contract is impossible because it is not ratifiable. Would you vote or expect others to vote to give away 15 years of seniority and perhaps $1 million plus of your career earnings in exchange for something of little or no value?

Witholding a vote is not USAPA's job. They cannot and should not be the ones to prejudge the vote of the membership. They must present a TA inclusive of Nic to the membership (with it's full endorsement no less) in order to avoid DFR actions.

If it fails, then they have every right to open new negotiations to secure a contract, which may take many bites at the apple as the membership chooses what aspects of a contract are important to them.

Do you suppose USAPA is worried that the membership would choose a Nic inclusive contract? Why do you support them restricting the options available unless delay is the lynchpin of their strategy, which harms the west and triggers the DFR.

 

[CallawayGolf]

I thought of it the same way you did. It's why I didn't think USAPA's plan would work. I heard a guy on CNBC say one day that there was not a contract written that couldn't be gotten out of, and I looked it from that angle. Looking at it word for word, ignoring what may or may not have been the intent, I said "Hmm, maybe they can".

Judge Silver seems to have heartburn over the fact that the company had not tried to negotiate. That seems to imply that a resolution other than the Nic is possible, as they 9th said "may not be the worst fears....." or whatever they said. If it can be something else, then it doens't have to be the Nic. The real trick to me would be passing the DFR II. DOH is way off the solution Nic came up with and it would have to be a really good reason. i get that, just not what the TA has to do with it.

I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying your're wrong. I've said I have no legal training. I'm just asking a question that, so far, has not gotten through my thick head.

Well technically any contract can be terminated, but that doesn't mean the pain of the breach of contract or termination penalty is worth the result. Alternatively, and much like the 9th implied with their "may not bring the harm" statement, is that almost any reasonable person or entity will agree to release another party from a contract if it means a greater benefit to them for doing so. We see this in sports all the time... a player has one year left on his contract for $3M but then goes in and signs a new 3-year contract worth $15M. Both the team and the player presumably got what they wanted by terminating their rights under the old contract. Certainly you are not suggesting, like the 9th foolishly did, that USAPA is willing to give the west pilots more under a new seniority list than what they already have under the NIC, right?

Where do you get the notion that Silver has heartburn? Siegel explained the status and pace of negotiations during the MTD hearings. He said, and accurately so, that the negotiations were now being guided by the NMB. This should have removed any questions she had about where negotiations were at this point. Plus, it's not within the juridiction of the DJ for her to declare that she doesn't like how both sides have negotiated up to this point. As Aqua stated above, her role is to rule on the Hobson's choice in the company's prayer for relief...to accept USAPA's non-NIC list or not. The fact that she did not dismiss the DJ indicates that she heard and agreed with the company's position that the 9th left them in a lose/lose situation and they need the court to sort it out for them.

 

[Res Judicata]

So if we have another merger our section 22 has to be the Nic, unaltered? I know that the intention was to use it, but does it matter? I'm not arguing the point, I'm asking a question. Seniority lists have been changed.

You would have to have some intelligence in order for me to insult it. I've seen not proof of that.

You support scabs. That's the bottom line. That's why you have no rebuttal because you know how abhorrent your pilot groups behavior has been. There is no defense.

 

[aquagreen73s]

Well technically any contract can be terminated, but that doesn't mean the pain of the breach of contract or termination penalty is worth the result. Alternatively, and much like the 9th implied with their "may not bring the harm" statement, is that almost any reasonable person or entity will agree to release another party from a contract if it means a greater benefit to them for doing so.

Yes, it's called an "efficient breach." Seham was all over it by suggesting that USAPA would trade a "cost neutral" contract for DOH. UA ALPA bargained with UAL to invert the 539 and 570 newhires, but had to give up a lot to UAL in order to indemnify UAL.That still had to work its way through the courts and UAL faced liability all along. But for them it was 539 pilots who might have been harmed and in that, not all that much really. There's quite a different between the Rakestraw case and what USAPA is trying to do. It's easy to see why the company appears to have no interest in taking a USAPA IOU. Hence, the declaratory action. The company is more than happy to sit on LOA93 and status quo while the dec action grinds through the courts. By the time it finishes, half of the AFOs will be gone. Problem solved.